Skip to main content

UC Regents to have closed-door meeting

Image
By scooby
UC Regents to have closed-door meeting on 'future of the LANL contract'

Really very odd that they cite 'security matters' as the excuse for the closed-door meeting. UC, with the strongest open door policy in the US, may find itself having to defend this decision to hold such a meeting not in public.
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/jan16/doe-ro.pdf

Comments

Anonymous said…
They may announce that UC has no interest in bidding for any future contracts to operate LANL. They are preparing to wipe their hands clean of Los Alamos though they'll probably fight to hold onto LLNL.

Battelle Institute along with some previously interested universities (Univ. of Texas, Texas A&M and Univ. of NM) in a non-profit organization may be the best future for a LANL contract after LANS has left. The history of LANS at LANL has been a disaster. Only the bloated LANS management chain seems to have benefited from the for-profit contract mechanism.
1/10/2016 3:06 PM
Anonymous said…
We cannot have UC stay involved in running LANL after 60 years of scandal, utter dysfunction, craziness, recklessness, insanity, mayhem. lunacy, spies, drugs, deaths, theft, fires, cowboys, cowgirls, scientists, recklessness, corruption, innovation, dystopia, schizophrenia, dysfunction, brutality, arrogance, excellence, hubris, money, greed, logic, western culture, courage and so on. Just imagine if UC had run the lab during the cold war we would have lost! No we cannot have UC, we can never go back to having a non-profit entity running our scientific labs lest we repeat history, it has been a ugly history indeed, and those that forget history are doomed to repeat it, and we cannot allow that to happen ever.
1/10/2016 6:24 PM
Anonymous said…
3:06 PM

Texas A&M and Battelle could be a winning team if they are interested. After the debacle of the most recent contract that has cast a very dark shadow over UC, it would not be surprising if Texas A&M joined many other top universities and declared "no interest in LANL."
1/10/2016 6:43 PM
Anonymous said…
What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall in that meeting room.

"...here's another fine mess you've gotten us into... "
1/11/2016 11:17 AM
Anonymous said…
They may be starting to worry that the LANL scandals could impact their valuable LBNL contract.
1/11/2016 12:44 PM
Anonymous said…
You can be assured that Norm Pattiz was behind the closed door meeting. He has the entire group of Regents snookered, including Neapolitano. Pattiz is bad for the University and everything it represents.
1/14/2016 3:58 AM
Anonymous said…
UC is bomb physics. Period. Anybody else has no, repeat, no experience.


DOE in complete contrast has f##cked up everything they have breathed on.
1/14/2016 4:58 PM
Anonymous said…
AQ Khan stole more bomb knowledge from Framatone that than every DOE employee has ever known.
1/14/2016 5:01 PM
Anonymous said…
It would be very bad if the University of New Mexico ran LANL. It would quickly reduce the level of science...to be on par with that at Livermore!
1/14/2016 7:28 PM
Anonymous said…
The University of New Mexico can't even run it's own Physics Department of 20 professors let alone 2,000 physicists AND 3,000 engineers. God bless um, but they are not up to the task!
1/20/2016 4:05 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem

By scooby
From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use.  touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...
96 comments
Read more